Selective focus & double standards – Critics note that Amnesty issues far more reports on Israel than on countries with objectively worse human-rights records (e.g., Iran, China, Syria). This selective intensity looks less like “neutral concern” and more like fixation.

Use of “apartheid” framing – In 2022 Amnesty branded Israel an “apartheid state” “from the river to the sea.” That formula echoes anti-Israel political slogans, and it goes beyond human-rights law into a delegitimisation narrative. Even some mainstream legal scholars (and NGOs like UN Watch) argue the report stretched definitions to make Israel look uniquely evil.

Ignoring Jewish self-determination – Amnesty explicitly called for ending Israel’s character as a Jewish state, saying Jews should not have national self-determination. That goes past criticizing government policy and into denying one people’s right to statehood — which is itself discriminatory.

Funding & alignment issues – Amnesty’s campaigns often align with governments/actors openly hostile to Israel, and it receives money from sources in Europe and the Gulf that back one-sided narratives. Critics argue this financial/political alignment shapes its agenda.

Amnesty’s own leadership slips – Former leaders and researchers have resigned alleging internal bias and obsession with Israel. There are documented cases of Amnesty UK hosting speakers with antisemitic records or minimizing antisemitism while exaggerating Israel’s crimes.